August 2017 - Boost - lists.boost.org

CMake Announcement from Boost Steering Committee
by Jon Kalb 13 Aug '24

13 Aug '24

The libraries produced by the Boost community have had a greater impact on the way that the C++ community writes code than any other library implementation. The focus of the Boost community will always be on the libraries, but it is undeniable that we are dependent on and often limited by the infrastructure of our trade. Years ago, the move to Git was contentious; yet, it was required to improve development. In a similar vein our build system has become an impediment for many developers and users, existing and prospective. Therefore, we, the Steering Committee, announce to the Boost community our desire and intent to move Boost’s build system to CMake for users and developers alike. We are soliciting comments and proposals from the community to guide the process and the goals. Our desire is that the community can come to consensus by the end of the calendar year with a vision of supporting users and developers. We understand that the actual process of achieving the end goal will be long, time consuming, and not without its share of conflict. We also recognize that the Boost community is comprised of bright and passionate individuals that are eager to get involved and help get work done. The members of the Steering Committee have been encouraged by the discussions and activity surrounding CMake on the mailing lists over the years and know that many people have voiced visions. We hope that each of you rejoins the discussion to support this initiative and contributes to the common goal of improving Boost’s integration into the broader C++ ecosystem. For the Boost Steering Committee, Jon Kalb, Chair jonkalb(a)boost.org

49 200

[yap] Re-announcing Yap
by Zach Laine 23 Feb '18

23 Feb '18

I posted 2-3 months ago about Yap, an expression template library I've written that I intend to propose for Boost. This is just a reminder that the library exists, and where to find it. I'm giving a talk about it at C++Now 2017, and some time after that I intend to submit it to the queue. Louis Dionne has offered to serve as review manager when the time comes. You can find the main repo on GitHub: https://github.com/tzlaine/yap And online docs are here: https://tzlaine.github.io/yap Zach

4 6

[beast] Security
by Phil Endecott 13 Dec '17

13 Dec '17

Dear All, To what extent do we think that Beast should be "secure"? I am thinking mostly about handling malicious input. Has it been reviewed by anyone with specific experience of how HTTP can be attacked? Has it been "fuzzed"? Regards, Phil.

6 10

icl mainainership?
by Avi Kivity 21 Nov '17

21 Nov '17

Hello, I see there are 7 pull requests outstanding against icl (including one of mine), but not activity. Joachim, are you still maintaining the library? If not, perhaps someone can step up.

3 4

A GUI Library
by jinhao 09 Nov '17

09 Nov '17

Hi, all I am developing a GUI library, it takes aim at easy-to-use and portable library for modern C++ methods. The project at http://stdex.sourceforge.net A git repository at http://nanapro.codeplex.com A brief at http://nanaproject.wordpress.com/2011/12/16/preliminary-study-of-nana-c-lib… Is there any interest in this library? Regards Jinhao

8 8

Asciidoc, an alternative for documentation
by Peter Dimov 12 Oct '17

12 Oct '17

I've been experimenting with Asciidoc-based documentation, using Boost.Assert as my guinea pig. The good thing about Asciidoc is that Github shows a preview and you can edit it directly on github.com. This is how the source looks there: https://github.com/boostorg/assert/blob/feature/asciidoc/doc/index.adoc https://github.com/boostorg/assert/blob/feature/asciidoc/doc/assert.adoc https://github.com/boostorg/assert/blob/feature/asciidoc/doc/current_functi… This is how the generated HTML documentation looks, using the default stylesheet, without any customizations on my part: https://rawgit.com/boostorg/assert/feature/asciidoc/doc/html/assert.html And this is how the generated PDF looks: http://pdimov.com/tmp/assert.pdf The tool that produces these is Asciidoctor, http://asciidoctor.org/ .

13 34

Searching for Review Manager for reflection library without macro
by Antony Polukhin 15 Sep '17

15 Sep '17

Hello, PFR is a C++14 library that provides tuple-like methods for aggregate initializables. Library has a set of predefined operators and useful functions for everyday use. Works with user-defined types without any macro or boilerplate code. Library: https://github.com/apolukhin/magic_get Docs: http://apolukhin.github.io/magic_get/ Boost Library Incubator: http://blincubator.com/bi_library/pfr-pod-flat-reflection/?gform_post_id=16… Anyone wishing to become a Review Manager for the library? Boost libraries that may benefit from PFR: * Convert - for out-of-the-box conversions of user types * Hana - for using user types instead of tuples * Intrusive - for reusing unused bits in user provided types * Serialization - for out-of-the-box serialization of user types * Spirit - for putting rule results into user provided types without Phoenix or Fusion macro * Test - for outputting content of user provided types * TypeTraits - for traits like has_unique_object_representations in C++14 -- Best regards, Antony Polukhin

7 9

Re: [boost] Review Request: impl_ptr (pimpl)
by Vladimir Batov 11 Sep '17

11 Sep '17

On 2017-08-19 23:55, Mario Lang wrote: > Vladimir Batov via Boost <boost(a)lists.boost.org> writes: > ... > I got interested enough by this posting so that I ended up doing my own > mini-review just right now :-). And I just wanted to let you know (and > encourage you) that I like this one alot. Keeping the public interface > free of boilerplate is quite nice! Mario, Thank you for your input. Much appreciated... although somewhat early. :-) It was pointed out to me that Boost review procedures changed and a proposal has to be endorsed before it can move to the review stage. So far I do not see it happening... maybe because the list is quiet (overall), maybe because iml_ptr is not good enough to attract that support/endorsement, maybe giving "endorsement" puts too much pressure and people shy away from it. We'll see. > I think for a full boost review, you will probably need to work on: > * The documentation > While I gave it a read, I ended up skipping to your test case because > I wanted to see working example code. > While the current docs have quite some examples, they spend a lot > more > screen space with showing what impl_ptr tries to replace, without > showing a good motivating positive example of how it actually looks > when employed. It also feels like it is spending some time with > marketing speak, while not really showing what it is trying to sell: Yes, I hear you... and I (at least partially) agree with you. First, no code or documentation will ever be to everyone's liking... unless everyone writes their own. Secondly, the documentation reflects many discussions we've had on this list about pimpl. For ex., I had to explicitly add what you call "marketing speak" to plainly explain why IMO pimpl is important. I had to address numerous "why bother" dismissing comments. What you call "marketing speak" I call an architectural view of a project. IMO it's quite different from developer's view that you seem to favor. All views are important... and all of them IMO need to be mentioned to cater for and to convince different readers. Surely, you (as a developer) is free to skip the "marketing speak". Somebody else (an architect and code-reviewer) might decide to skip other bits. No drama. Does it make sense? > The separation between the public interface in a hpp and the template > specialization in a cpp. I think the motivating example should > clearly show what part of the code goes where. Isn't what I did in third and fourth chapters? That said, I'll never be able to write the way you (or somebody else) like it. So, if you feel really strongly about it, please feel free to re-write it as you feel proper and submit. I am more than happy to consider and take others help. Unfortunately, that'll reverse our positions as I (and potential reviewers) might be saying "nuh, not enough "marketing speak" and such. No pressure... but that's an option to shape it up to your liking. > * Namespace: > While the alias is good, I think the whole code should be moved to > boost::, and the detail to boost::detail::impl_ptr::. > I am sort of guessing this will come up in the review. > I might be interested to help with that and submit the renaming PR if > you are open to that. 1) I do agree that the "whole code should be moved to boost::"... when it is part of Boost. Currently it is not. Currently I am on the earliest stage of gathering interest and waiting for "endorsement" and the review manager. 2) As I think I mentioned before impl_ptr is not part of any namespace by design... because the way proxy and implementation are connected, the specialization of impl_ptr<>::implementation. As I also mentioned it is IMO only a "problem" for "purists" but not for "practitioners" as from outside it is all kosher and accessed via boost::impl_ptr. You might be interested in searching for "Pimpl Again?" thread on this list for prev. discussions. Still, it you know a way around it and willing to submit your suggestions, I am certainly open for and most welcome it. But just to state the obvious -- as you do not like every line of code/doc that I write -- that goes both ways.

5 14

[build][wave][thread][date-time] 1.65.0 clang on Windows build failures
by Konstantin Ivlev 02 Sep '17

02 Sep '17

Hi, I am trying to compile boost 1.65.0 on Windows via clang 4.0.1 with the following user-config.jam: using clang : 4.0 : "C:/Program Files/LLVM/bin/clang.exe" : <compileflags>-fmsc-version=1910 <ranlib>"C:/Program Files/LLVM/bin/llvm-ranlib.exe" <archiver>"C:/Program Files/LLVM/bin/llvm-ar.exe" <linkflags>-fuse-ld=lld ; and there are few issues. 1. clang.jam ignores ranlib/archiver settings. currently there is the PR https://github.com/boostorg/build/pull/232 against clang-darwin.jam, and I suppose the same should be applied to the clang-linux.jam. 2. there are numerous errors in boost wave: .\boost/wave/grammars/cpp_expression_grammar.hpp:829:18: error: case value evaluates to -804257404, which cannot be narrowed to type 'unsigned int' [-Wc++11-narrowing] case T_CPPCOMMENT: // contains newline (about 100 errors of such kind for various enumerations) 3. WinAPI-related errors in boost::date_time & boost::thread, e.g. In file included from libs\coroutine\src\windows\stack_traits.cpp:23: In file included from .\boost/thread.hpp:13: In file included from .\boost/thread/thread.hpp:12: In file included from .\boost/thread/thread_only.hpp:15: In file included from .\boost/thread/win32/thread_data.hpp:10: In file included from .\boost/thread/thread_time.hpp:10: In file included from .\boost/date_time/microsec_time_clock.hpp:23: .\boost/date_time/filetime_functions.hpp:57:46: error: conflicting types for 'GetSystemTimeAsFileTime' __declspec(dllimport) void __stdcall GetSystemTimeAsFileTime(FILETIME* lpFileTime); ^ C:\Program Files (x86)\Windows Kits\10\include\10.0.15063.0\um\sysinfoapi.h:159:1: note: previous declaration is here GetSystemTimeAsFileTime( ^ seems like stack_traits.cpp unconditionally includes windows.h, while BOOST_USE_WINDOWS_H is not defined in case of clang build, so filetime_functions.hpp defines its own WinAPI prototypes. probably shall be somehow fixed in boost config? any advice on how to proceed with these issues?

3 4

[iterator] generator_iterator vs. function_input_iterator
by Andrey Semashev 01 Sep '17

01 Sep '17

Hi, There seems to be two nearly equivalent components in Boost.Iterator: generator_iterator (moved from Boost.Utility) and function_input_iterator. Both are input iterators wrapping a function object, which result is used as the dereferenced value. The difference is: - generator_iterator always creates an instance of the element type while function_input_iterator does that lazily; - function_input_iterator uses result_of while generator_iterator relies on C++03 T::result_type - equality comparison is different: generator_iterators compares equal if both refer to the same generator and cached element instances are equal while function_input_iterator uses an additional state (which can be viewed as an index) for comparison instead of the cached element. So basically, they are the same thing. generator_iterator looks a bit more dated and IMHO its comparison implementation is not as robust as that of function_input_iterator, so maybe we should deprecate it?

4 6